Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
MIT Machine Morality
I figured I'd give this it's own thread so as not to derail the ToYD thread with results. This is just a series of scenarios for self-driving cars, you choose which one you'd prefer happen.
The Test: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
My results: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1853544227
The Test: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
My results: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1853544227
Comments
1. Kill animals over killing humans. Sorry.
2. Kill passengers of car that has failed versus killing unrelated passerby's who didn't choose to be in the car.
3. Save youth over elders.
4. Try not to kill homeless people 'cause it seems like a dick move.
That automatically answered like, the majority of questions. It ascribed things like gender preference and whatnot, when those really didn't account for my decision-making process the majority of the time.
An interesting test, though, to be sure.
Edit: Tried sharing my results, but the link seems to be broken and wind up blanking out.
The main issue is that the obstacle that is meant to kill the people in the car looks completely undeadly. It's just a barrier! If a car is going fast enough that passengers die when it hits a barrier, then it is already waaaay too fast for operating in an area where there are pedestrian crossings.
In my mind, cars are already the safest place for humans in a car vs human accident. There should be no situation EVER where a car swerves into any group of pedestrians where smashing into a wall, a lamp post, or even another self-driving vehicle is an option.
If the illustrations showed a car either driving into a group of pedestrians or driving off a cliff to certain destruction, then I might be able to take it seriously.
If the illustrations showed groups of pedestrians on the side of a motorway, escaping a burning bus (the only time an autonomous vehicle should be encountering pedestrians while going fast enough to kill them), then I might be able to take it seriously.
It says I want to save women more than men. I didn't even look! I didn't look at the illustrations hard enough to even notice there were different genders, different fitness of people, that some were crooks and others law abiding citizens, or different ages.
What self driving car will be determining these things about pedestrians it passes? Will every car have facial recognition and a link to a crime database... in real time? What the hell.
Good night.
Option C: Stop and let them cross.
Also, why are there so many random barriers in the middle of lanes apparently still being driven on? Shouldn't there just be an angled one and signs signaling you to merge into the next lane? That's just unsafe road planning.
1. Upholding the law
2. Protecting humans
3. Minimizing total casualties
4. Nonintervention
I felt like this kid during this test.
Fewest human deaths
Kill passengers before bystanders
Do not intervene
In that order to break ties.
Coincidentally, because of the scenarios selected, that also means I selected for fit people, young people, and criminals. Something seems particularly icky about swerving to kill a different group of equal size because it contains more criminals. I didn't notice the traffic signals when I took the test, I might put them second in that decision structure.
1) Saving the most human lives (fit young humans to be exact)
2) Upholding the law
3) Non-intervention
Though I think I had a slightly different decision tree for intervention than some. My thought process was something like this:
-Always save the most humans
-If the number of humans killed would be equal:
a) Do not crash into a concrete barrier (because crashing into a barrier creates a greater hazard for other motorists than crashing into squishy meat)
b) If a concrete barrier is not an issue:
i) save the most young and/or fit and/or skilled people (young/fit/skilled each add 1 "point" to the "value" of each life)
ii) If everything is still equal, do not intervene
If self-driving cars obeyed traffic laws, they would become respected like trains. If you know the self-driving car is going to go when it has a green light, regardless of what you do, then you aren't going to jaywalk in the first place. People will respect crossing the street the way they respect crossing train tracks. Self-driving cars being programmed that way will result in the least total deaths over time, even if in that example picture their happen to be a whole bunch of jaywalkers becoming roadkill.